Controlled Substances Benchbook—2007 Updates
Updates have been issued for the following sections of the Controlled Substances Benchbook. The updates replace specific pages in the print version of the benchbook and may be printed from the links below. These pages have already been integrated into the electronic version of the benchbook.
Chapter 4: Other Offenses in the Controlled Substances Act
4.5 Keeping or Maintaining a Drug House, page 4-8
“Keep or maintain” does not require that the defendant exercise authority or control over the property “continuously for an appreciable period of time.” People v Thompson, 477 Mich 146 (2007) (overruling in part People v Griffin, 235 Mich App 27 (1999)).
[The two paragraphs preceding Section 4.6 on page 4-10 were deleted.]
Chapter 11: Double Jeopardy
11.3 Multiple Punishments: Legislative Intent Test, page 11-5
The definition of “same offense” for purposes of the multiple punishments strand of double jeopardy is the same as the definition used for purposes of the multiple prosecutions strand. People v Bobby Lynell Smith, 478 Mich 292 (2007).
Chapter 12: Search and Seizure
12.1 Protections Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, page 12-3
The permissible inference that a drug dealer keeps evidence of wrongdoing in his or her residence is not limited to situations involving the immediate distribution of drugs; the inference applies also to individuals engaged in the manufacture of drugs, because the manufacturer is only one step from distributing his or her product. United States v Kenny, 505 F3d 458 (CA 6, 2007).
When an affidavit in support of a search warrant contains information sufficient for a finding of probable cause, it is unnecessary to determine whether an anonymous informant had personal knowledge of the allegations on which the search warrant was based. People v Keller, 479 Mich 467 (2007) (reversing People v Keller, 270 Mich App 446 (2006)).
12.2 Warrantless Seizures of a Person, page 12-4
Michigan does not recognize the doctrine of constructive entry, but the Court discusses the doctrine in detail in a case involving the defendant's claim that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy when the officers coerced him into stepping outside of his home. People v Gillam, 479 Mich 253 (2007).
A passenger in a vehicle stopped by police is seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the moment the car in which the passenger is riding comes to a stop on the side of the road. Brendlin v California, 551 US ___ (2007).
12.4 When the Search Is Not a Search, page 12-11
An individual may abandon property for Fourth Amendment purposes without losing ownership interest in the property. People v Darrin Henry, 477 Mich 1123 (2007).
12.10 Consent to Search, page 12-18
The warrantless search of a passenger's backpack was permissible solely on the basis of the driver's consent to search the vehicle. People v LaBelle , 478 Mich 891 (2007) (reversing People v LaBelle, 273 Mich App 214 (2006)).
[The reference to LaBelle, supra, in the last paragraph on page 12-20 was deleted.]
Chapter 13: Evidentiary Issues
13.3 Testimonial Evidence, page 13-6
A police officer's testimony regarding a confidential informant's out-of-court identification of the defendant was proper because the statement was offered to explain how and why the defendant was arrested; it was not offered to prove the truth of the informant's tip. People v Chambers, 277 Mich App 1 (2007).
13.4 Physical Evidence, page 13-8
Evidence of properly performed drug analysis field testing is admissible in a preliminary examination solely to establish that the substance tested is a controlled substance. MCL 766.11b. 2007 PA 89, effective December 29, 2007.
Chapter 15: Forfeiture
15.6 Seizure of Property Subject to Forfeiture, page 15-13
Evidence that has been illegally seized is not physically admissible in a forfeiture proceeding, but the evidence may still be forfeited if a preponderance of the evidence untainted by the illegality supports an order of forfeiture. In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich 444 (2007).
15.7 Judicial Forfeiture Procedures, page 15-16
Questions about illegally seized evidence subject to forfeiture are limited to inquiries about the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the property; questions asked about the property at a forfeiture proceeding may not be related to the property's physical attributes. In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich 444 (2007).
|
